Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Thom Stark offers a criticism of Paul Copan's defense of the Old Testament. Copan rightly notes that Susan Niditch, on her book on war in the Old Testament, claims that the dominant voice of the Old Testament is against the idea that killing enemies is a sacrifice to God. However, Niditch says there is an earlier, less dominant voice that accepts the idea that killing enemies in war is a sacrifice to God. Copan tells you about the dominant voice, apparently implying that it is the only voice, though I don't see how why the phrase "dominant voice" which he does quote, could fail to imply a not-so-dominant voice. But he doesn't tell you about the less dominant voice, which Niditch also presents. This, Stark says, is deceptive apologetics.

The picture Niditch presents fits rather well along the lines of the idea of an evolving moral consciousness in the Old Testament, an idea I have no problem with. It might be embarrassing to the understanding of inerrancy that Copan endorses. I'm not an expert on applied inerrancy.

I'd like to see what others think about this. I am also going to e-mail Paul for his reaction.

61 comments:

"Not quite. Susan Niditch's study, War in the Hebrew Bible, affirms that the 'ban' in the early texts (for example, Deut. 20) refers to the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured."

Then he immediately quotes her as follows:

"The dominant voice in the Hebrew Bible condemns child sacrifice as the epitome of anti-Yahwist and anti-social behavior . . . . the dominant voice in the Hebrew Bible treats the ban not as sacrifice in exchange for victory but as just and deserved punishment for idolaters, sinners, and those who lead Israel astray or commit direct injustice against Israel."

In fact, he does more than obfuscate. He misrepresents entirely, and I can't see how he did not do this intentionally, unless he is just a very sloppy reader.

Copan says, "the 'ban' in the early texts (for example, Deut. 20)." But Deut 20, in Niditch's argument, is not one of the early texts. Deut 20 is that dominant voice that condemns human sacrifice.

I think it's pretty clear that Copan is either intentionally glossing over her argument, or that he failed to understand one of the most basic contentions of her argument.

Now, your idea of progressive revelation has its own problems, but that is not what Copan is advocating at all.

I appreciate the discussion and it will be interesting to see what Copan has to say.

Please let's not hijack Victor's blog with your questions and accusations about my character. You can continue the conversation with me in the email I sent to you."

Welcome to the world of deceptive apologetics Thom.Morrison is just kindly introducing you to the very fine Christian art of casting stones 101.Its always worked very well to create many divisions,cults,dominations and persons like Morrison who being perfect human beings, are far more interested in the great importance of celebrating the terrible imperfections of others.You know, doing the work of Jesus and all that stuff.Bagging any prostitutes,admitted liars,those who admit adultery, anyone not quite as perfect as the modern day prophet Morrison is.

Morri`s ministry has you measured up now too, ready for a dose of the shunning medecine.How dare you be involved in exposing any hypocrisy within faith.Jesus always publically expressed such abhorrence of this most terrible practice.Thom you need to be repentant for such sin.

Adonai/Kyrios/Dominus is language taken from ancient slave/master societies, language that I think we need to be critical of. It's encultured language. A Calvinist might be able to attribute it to "divine accommodation."

Does Jesus show us who God is and beckon us to follow in his path?

Yes. I affirm that.

You probably won't like it, but fortunately for me you're not my "lord" either.

Now, are we done hijacking Victor's post? Please direct further personal questions to my email address, which you have. Whatever I email you, you may post on your own blog for all to see. I just want to be respectful of Victor's blog.

Morrison if you are the same guy I have sparred with before, I think you are being judgmental.

But, unfortunately, it is true that Loftus admits that he lied on important occasions when he talks about it in his book, and, more importantly, had been caught lying such then. The JP Holding matter was a major blunder on his part.

That Thom thinks Loftus is an important voice is thus disturbing.

More disturbing, is that he could not answer your question in the affirmative.

I am a Christian and actually agree with alot of Thom's critique. Unfortunately I am totally turned off by his tone. Thom obviously has an axe to grind with conservative apologists that goes beyond disagreeing or disputing their arguments. Copan is way outside his field on this topic and I'm not at all surprised that he's making some errors here. He obviously needs to update/revise his work in light of Thom's critique. There would be a much better chance of that, and thus a much better chance of Christians and non-Christians alike not being misinformed by some of Copan's mistakes (not just on the use of Niditch), if Thom could show a little maturity and charity, and give Copan the benefit of the doubt. I really don't care about Thom's relationship with Loftus, but I have been reading Loftus for a long time. Loftus can be accused of EXACTLY the same sort of blunders, and many more, and we don't see Thom going on a crusade against the myriad of Loftus' misrepresentations.

To bring the conversation back into focus, just a few points reference your points.

First, reference the quotations you cited. Mr. Copan does not obfuscate, nor is he possibly a liar (as you imply), nor is he a sloppy reader. What he is, in my assessment, is an individual who made a small but significant grammatical error, which you chose—again, in my assessment—to read uncharitably. And then, due to this uncharitable reading, you accused Mr. Copan of various further allegations which are severely unwarranted. The reason that I say this, is because it is obvious to anyone giving Mr. Copan a charitable reading that his error was the simple omission of one word (albeit a significant one), which clarifies his meaning completely (please pay attention to the capitalized word).

Quoting Mr. Copan:

“Not quite. Susan Niditch's study, War in the Hebrew Bible, affirms that the 'ban' in the early texts (for example, Deut. 20) refers to the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured, BUT: (then the quote from Niditch) The dominant voice in the Hebrew Bible condemns child sacrifice…”

Quite honestly, it only took me one reading of this section of Mr. Copan’s work to realize that, in the context of what he was writing, this is what he meant and that he (and the editors), simply forgot to add a “but”. A grammatical error, yes. Obfuscation and intentional misleading, hardly. Truth be told, this fact was so obvious to me, that I daresay an apology to Mr. Copan is warranted for the charge of obfuscation.

Second, concerning Deut. 20, which you claim Niditch claims is not an early text, as it employs the dominant voice that condemns human sacrifice. Having not read Niditch’s book, I take neither your word nor Mr. Copan’s on what Niditch says. What I have read, however, is Deut. 20, which clearly is both a passage that condemns human sacrifice for some people, but then condones it for others:

“16But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17but you shall devote them to complete destruction,[a] (That is, set apart (devote) as an offering to the Lord (for destruction)) the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, 18that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God. (Deut. 20:16-18, ESV)

Mr. Copan is, therefore, right to include Deut. 20 as an “early text”, whether Niditch did so or not, as it talks about complete destruction of people as an offering to the Lord. But this is not all, for it is necessary to be precise and clear on what Mr. Copan claimed specifically, which was the following:

“…affirms that the "ban" in the early texts (for example, Deut. 20) refers to the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured.”

Notice the key point Mr. Copan is making here is about the destruction of warriors and the consecration to God everything that was captured, meaning that it could still be living. Yet this, which is the precise thing that Mr. Copan is arguing for, is supported by Deut. 20:

“12But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand,(I) you shall put all its males to the sword, 14(J) but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you(K) shall take as plunder for yourselves. And(L) you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. (Deut. 20:12-14, ESV).

So Deut. 20 commands the killing of warriors and, through obedience to God’s commands with what to do with it, the consecration of everything else to God. This means that, once again, Mr. Copan is completely within his rights to use Deut. 20 as an example of an “early text,” regardless of whether Niditch does or not, as well as an example of his precise point.

And so, Mr. Stark, to use your own words (at the end of your first comment) in reference to what I think is your level of assessment of Mr. Copan’s argument: I think it’s pretty clear that Mr. Stark is either intentionally glossing over Mr. Copan’s argument, or that Mr. Stark failed to understand one of the most basic contentions of Mr. Copan’s argument.

I fail to see how I “tried” anything. I responded to your comment—and please note the key distinction that I replied to your comment, not your overall thesis—and you have done nothing in response but throw out a few assertions.

“We'll let Copan speak for himself. You missed the boat.”

We sure will, and I could not care one way or the other if you respond to me in detail, but do not tell me that I missed the boat when I responded to you in both detail and with clear points. You can most certainly dispute them, but as already mentioned, if anything, throwing out a few assertions shows that the only person that missed the boat is you.

“Meantime, you can actually do some research like reading the book in question.”

Please note that, once again as already stated, I was replying to your comment about Mr. Copan, not your overall thesis concerning him. Your specific comment about Mr. Copan has thus been shown to be demonstrably false; your overall thesis concerning him is still “up in the air” from my point of view. And as a side-note, it weakens your overall position when I do not even have to read the book to show that your comment is false.

“Until then, your comments are wide of the mark.”

Another assertion, which is a fact that seems to make my argument for me. But please, if you have the time, demonstrate how I am wide off the mark.

I should mention, as a final point, I am a Catholic, and as such have no real stake in this discussion. I do not, however, like poorly worded comments or accusations, and therefore decided to respond.

Also, you don't seem to understand how the dating of a text is determined by scholars. The dating of Deut 20 is disputed, with most critical scholars dating it late. That includes Niditch. Copan makes no argument for an early date, and cites it as if Niditch uses it as an example of an early text.

Your defense of Copan is uninformed and ill-advised. That's why I'd rather hear from Copan himself.

By the end of this comment, you will see why I will have to recommend the same advice to you.

You said: “Israel is to kill everyone in the cities of Canaan, but may spare those outside Canaan's borders if they accept a peace treaty.”

Well thank you. Perhaps that is why I said, in an earlier comment:

‘What I have read, however, is Deut. 20, which clearly is both a passage that condemns human sacrifice for some people [meaning the peace treaty], but then condones it for others [meaning those that do not]’

And then I demonstrated how Deut. 20 condones human sacrifice in key portions, quoting the following:

‘16But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17but you shall devote them to complete destruction,[a] (That is, set apart (devote) as an offering to the Lord (for destruction)) the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, 18that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God. (Deut. 20:16-18, ESV)’

If, by definition, an “early text” is one that condones human sacrifice as an offering to the Lord, then key portions of Deut. 20 match that description, which is why I claimed the following:

‘Mr. Copan is, therefore, right to include Deut. 20 as an “early text”, whether Niditch did so or not, as it talks about complete destruction of people as an offering to the Lord.’

I then made a precise point:

‘But this is not all, for it is necessary to be precise and clear on what Mr. Copan claimed specifically, which was the following:

“…affirms that the "ban" in the early texts (for example, Deut. 20) refers to the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured.”

Notice the key point Mr. Copan is making here is about the destruction of warriors and the consecration to God everything that was captured, meaning that it could still be living. Yet this, which is the precise thing that Mr. Copan is arguing for, is supported by Deut. 20:

“12But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13And when the LORD your God gives it into your hand,(I) you shall put all its males to the sword, 14(J) but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you(K) shall take as plunder for yourselves. And(L) you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. (Deut. 20:12-14, ESV).

So Deut. 20 commands the killing of warriors and, through obedience to God’s commands with what to do with it, the consecration of everything else to God. This means that, once again, Mr. Copan is completely within his rights to use Deut. 20 as an example of an “early text,” regardless of whether Niditch does or not, as well as an example of his precise point.’

You said: “Your reading of Deut 20 is just as sloppy as Copan's reading of Niditch.”

You are entitled to you own opinion, poor as I now consider it to be, but please let the readers decide who is being sloppy here.

You said: “Also, you don't seem to understand how the dating of a text is determined by scholars. The dating of Deut 20 is disputed, with most critical scholars dating it late. That includes Niditch.”

Please refrain from claiming what I do not “seem to understand,” as you have no knowledge of my background or history. Furthermore, I am leery of the term “critical” scholar, as it is allows too much use of the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy. Namely, if the person does not agree with your opinion, he is not a “critical” scholar, but if he does agree with you, then he is.

You said: “Copan makes no argument for an early date…”

Actually, he implicitly does, as I demonstrated above. If an “early date” is defined by its condoning of human sacrifice for the Lord, and Deut. 20 includes such condoning, as I have demonstrated that it does, then this is an implicit argument for Deut. 20’s early dating.

“…and cites it as if Niditch uses it as an example of an early text.”

This is true, and Mr. Copan should not have done so, as it forces the reader to make an investigation into Deut. 20 himself. This is not a great task, but could have been avoided.

You said: “Your defense of Copan is uninformed and ill-advised.”

It is my opinion that the same could be said of your personal defense against my comments. I must further add that it is something to consider that, if you both do not read my comments properly and tend to comment via assertion rather than argument, how much weight should I put into your assessment of Mr. Copan?

You said: “That's why I'd rather hear from Copan himself.”

Me too, but I am happy to try to dismantle your comments myself in the meantime.

It is your blog, and therefore as per your request, I will not comment again after this final point.

You said: “Read Niditch’s book, then come back and comment. Until then, you’re just not able to track.”

You keep repeating such things like a mantra, but simply repeating them does not make them true. Stop referring me to other books and argue your claimed point!

You said: “Deut 20 does not refer to human sacrifice anywhere.”

Except, of course, when it does: “But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction,[a] (That is, set apart (devote) as an offering to the Lord (for destruction)) the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded... (Deut. 20:16-17)”

Let us see. This passage speaks of killing human beings, and that the killing of them is to be as an offering to the Lord. This means that Deut. 20 includes a passage about human sacrifice to the Lord. Your claim above is thus demonstrably false.

You said: “I’m sorry, but you’ve only won a victory in your own mind.”

I have won no victory, as I could easily be wrong. What I have done, however, is make an argument that has only been met with various assertions.

You said: “I suggest we’ll have nothing further to contribute to each other’s understanding until we can both get on the same page in terms of the academic research.”

There are plenty of other places on the internet when you can talk about the adequacy of Loftus's arguments, including some other posts here. Loftus seems to take over the discussions even when he doesn't post here at all.

Thom has already been accused of being pals with Loftus as if its some big crime being friendly with somebody.If there is one big thing i feel lots of respect for Victor Reppert for ,it is that i notice it seems mostly he`s a very fair man and doesnt seem to be interested in personal hate towards Loftus even if he often strongly opposes what Loftus says.

Somebody must have something wrong i cant see how it can be both ways,either personal hate is ok or its not.Either the bible is a big mess ,or deceptive apologetics gets used more often than many people might like to admit.

Morrison said..."Everything I have said about Loftus is factual. You can't rely on him given his own admissions."

Very nice shot across the bow Morri.The bible says all humans are sinners.It says all fall short of the glory of God.It suggests let him without sin cast the fist stone.

So is what the bible says, factual Morri?.If so why is it that you can always be trusted, but Loftus cant be?.

The thing is im sure Loftus has his problems and some are publically known,he even admits them in his book.I know he loses his cool too sometimes, but then who doesnt.I also know Christian deceptive apologetics exists too, and manipulation and taunting and lots of nastiness.Loftus has been among this and sampled this.What i would like to know is this, is the bible itself full of deceptive apologetics ,or were some people convinced maybe Loftus was supposed to be some reincarnation of Jesus, who wouldnt ever react badly to being exposed to bad human habits.

Thom Stark might be best forewarned about the dangerous waters that can sometimes turn even the best of sailors into grumpy men prone to sometimes lose their cool.However something tells me Thom Stark already understands something about this.Something tells me Thom Stark looks a little deeper into muddy waters than what is exposed on the surface.

Something tells me Victor Reppert is the same type of sailor.

Anonymous said... "And Thom started out with the name calling, he chose the tone.

He is just not the Loftus Boy, he is the Loftus Bitch."

Anonymous said..."Thoms dishonesty is exposed by his starting out this critique of Copan by calling him a liar.

This is typical, by the way, of the tactics John Loftus uses.

THREE of us tried to get a discussion going with Thom, and he would not post ANY of our messages.

And he is obviously engaging in sock puppetry on his own board.

IF Loftus is praising him, it can only be because he thinks Thom's work will harm Christianity in general."

If this type talk were that of John Loftus, we would very soon hear the sound of Christians all clambering over each other to try to be the first to set him straight.Like a rabid herd of thristy elephants in a desert heading for the traditional muddy water hole to drink, chasing competition away.

Yet because its other Christians elephants, nobody seems to ever say anything much about it.Loftus is expected to always keep his cool,while Christian elephants can run riot as they please.

Brace yourself for experiencing some very rough waters ahead Thom Stark.The waters already getting turbulent even though you only just set sail.

I think Thom is being uncharitable with Copan (even though its obvious Copan needs to rewrite/rethink). But I'm pretty shocked, as a Christian, by some of the seemingly Christian anonymous posters on this blog. Calling Thom someone's "bitch"? Really? We shouldn't be talking to anyone that way. That's worse than anything I've seen Loftus post on this blog.

Here are some positive things we can glean from interacting with Thom's writing (instead of being fearful/reactive):

1. He's obviously very bright. From the things said about his book so far, we can expect a thorough presentation of some of the toughest issues for evangelicals to deal with, in OT historicity, OT ethics, etc. Most evangelical Christians probably don't read widely enough in this subject and he's doing a favor here in that regard.

2. It sounds like he is going to be offering a sort of liberal Christian solution to these issues, and I think it is always healthy to see this. I have interacted with more liberal Christians on alot of issues. I have always reacted strongly at first. On some issues, I have never agreed. On other issues, later on as I matured, I came to appreciate and even accept many of their views.

I've read almost everything by Dale Allison. Allison is brilliant; anyone who has read his work knows this. He also maintains a fairly strong faith in what most evangelicals feel are the essentials of Christianity, though his critical scholarship has led him to believe some fairly unorthodox things (e.g. Jesus was sorely mistaken about the end of the world). Just on Allison's recommendation of Thom's book alone, I have to believe that it is going to be well-argued and extremely challenging.

I hope Thom will simply cultivate more gentleness in disagreeing with evangelicals. After all, if he is a Christian, we are all brothers. You have to remember that we are disagreeing here about issues that are very close to all of our hearts. It is simply not easy to see some of these things challenged.

I'm extremely challenged by his views on Christology, and I disagree strongly, but I've also had to refine some of my own views in light of them, as he seems obviously right in some instances.

Im he who posted above about my respect for the way Victor handles matters.Im an atheist and post as anonymous here because i know about the nasty factor among many Christians,and should i post more publicly it would only serve to enrage people here.Maybe as an atheist i should be happy to see many Christians suddenly ganging up on Thom.

Thom is young and he is still Christian.And as another anon poster pointed out Dale Allison maintains a fairly strong faith in what most evangelicals feel are the essentials of Christianity.Just on Allison's recommendation of Thom's book alone, I have to believe that it is going to be well-argued and extremely challenging

Now i wouldnt know who this Dale Allison is, from a bar of soap.But this poster even though they obviously also feel wary of posting publically here incase of also being ripped to peices by the crew of rabid christian elephants,feels Thom deserves to be shown some better understanding and maybe even a little kindness.

Ive seen some people here rip into Thom for his lack of gentleness.Well hello look at many of you lot here on this blog,do you suppose Thoms experience among Christians was somehow totally free of this lack of gentleness?.If not,how do you suppose you can expect Thom to have come out with this gentleness he is acused of lacking?,was somebody here thinking maybe Thom was also a reincarnation of Jesus, like many faith people often seem to expect of others who have been through the faith wringer being mangled along the way.

What do you expect miracles?.

As an atheist i dont usually bother using the word ought.But in this case i think some real soul searching is in order,and in my opinion some Christian ought to be rather ashamed.So much for the word of Jesus about all falling short of the glory of God.Morri cant even offer a simple apology and admit everyone makes mistakes.

Why would young folk stay within faith today?.You folk are often so mean.

Now im an atheist and maybe i should shut my trap and be very happy about this.But i try to be a fair person which is why i have much respect for Victor.And Thom has nasty Christian attacking him from all angles at present.Whats worse he has little support or kindness being given by any christians which to me only makes this matter seem terrible.

You might not agree with him on what he says.But atleast show the young man some charity and kindness.

You cant expect people to learn that what you yourself are lacking in.Unless you really believe in miracles.

BenYachov said... "Well maybe I'm bias siding with a fellow Catholic but RD does make the better argument against Thom."

BenYachov You may be right,but it seems to me Thom still felt Rd was missing what he was trying to explain.

Heres a thread on Thoms site for reference http://thomstark.net/?p=1624#comments

Where he goes further to explain.

Quote.

RD, you quote vv. 16-17 and conveniently stop short of verse 18 which shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle. Verse 18 reads: “so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.”

You see, if you had read Niditch’s book, you would know what you’re talking about. Niditch argues that the early ideology of war was one where the sacrifice of noncombatants was offered to Yahweh in exchange for victory against combatants. But, as Niditch argues, in Deut 20, this is not the case because a moral justification for the annihilation of the Canaanites is offered. Thus, killing them is no longer seen as an offering to God in exchange for giving Israel victory against the Canaanite armies; rather, the slaughter of the noncombatants is portrayed as a punishment for their moral and spiritual depravity.

Thus, once again, your unfamiliarity with Niditch’s argument prevents you from being able to offer a valid critique of my critique of Copan’s use of Niditch. Got it?

I said: I’m sorry, but you’ve only won a victory in your own mind.

You said: I have won no victory, as I could easily be wrong. What I have done, however, is make an argument that has only been met with various assertions.

I have not made various assertions. It’s just that your unfamiliarity with the relevant material has prevented you from seeing the relevance of what I’ve said in response to your claims.

I said: I suggest we’ll have nothing further to contribute to each other’s understanding until we can both get on the same page in terms of the academic research. You said: Please, keep your subtle insults concerning my academic credentials/research, in comparison to yours, to yourself, as you know nothing about me.

This was not a subtle insult, or an insult of any kind, RD. I was referring to the fact that you have not read Niditch’s book, which you stated at the outset. Thus the “academic research” that you haven’t done to which I was referring was Niditch’s book, as I’ve said repeatedly.

I said: I appreciate your willingness to defend Copan, who I’ve attacked.

You said: Honestly, I could care less about Mr. Copan. What I cared about was the fact that I thought your comments were poorly thought-out and poorly argued, and I wished to demonstrate this.

I appreciate good criticism, of course. So I’m grateful for the honest attempt. Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate that my comments were poorly thought-out and poorly argued. All you have demonstrated is that you have not read Niditch’s book, which is no crime, but would be very helpful if you wish to critique my critique of Copan’s use of Niditch’s book.

Good bye.

End Quote.

Thom suggests RD stopped short of verse 18, which Thom suggests shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle.

This thread is already about Deceptive Apologetics.Deceptive Apologetics can be deceptive whether they are purposely presented in hope of it being that way or not.

Why cant Christians discuss these matters without having to be hating on each other?.Surely faithful dont have any problem with exploring what may or may not be the truth?.You dont want deception to be promoted do you?

And please dont try blaming it all on the young Thom Stark.He sure didnt invent this lack of gentleness among Christians.Do the elders lead the way?,or is it all up to the young to display this gentleness people speak of.

>Thom suggests RD stopped short of verse 18, which Thom suggests shows that this is not an example of human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle.

I reply: I read the original thread over at Thom's blog just a few days ago. I guess Thom just can't practice what he preaches(i.e. reading carefully) RD did quote verse 18 in his post #14. So I guess Thom by his own standards is either a liar or incompotent.;-) No not really. That would be stupid.

Seriously, the rest of Thom's "response" to RD was merely repeat. I'm not impressed. OTOH I find Thom's overall critique of Copan tedious and overblown. In essence he is merely nitpicking one maybe two citations out of 74 (if you check the bibliography of Copan's essay) and from that hurling uncharitable invectives about "Deceptive Apologetics" and calling Copan a "liar"(btw I was not impressed by Thom's lame excuse about calling Copan a liar being an inside reference to CS Lewis "liar, Lord or Lunatic" view of Jesus. Just man up Thom & apologize). Anyway Copan can defend himself (and his original essay was very good over all). I'm not involved. It was wrong for some unsigned coward to call Thom "Loftus' bitch" but that doesn't mean Thom isn't behaving a little badly himself.

Unfortunaly the internet brings out the worst in people (yours truely is rather infamous for it). Even over at Dawkin's website there was some type of falling out and all the Atheists are hating on each other. I'm Catholic & can I tell you some ugly stories about my experiences with my fellow orthodox and traditionalist Catholics. Yikes!

Hi BenYachov that seems a pretty fair call of yours,and you do seem correct.

It guess it just gives me the heeby jeebys a bit when theists start getting heated amongst each other.Maybe it reminds me too much of past trauma experienced involved in excommunications and divisions.If we must have theism, i cant help hoping it would be kinder toward each other.

For some reason for me i find it easier to handle and understand when theists go dog on us atheists ,its like i even expect it.

You said: "I guess Thom just can't practice what he preaches(i.e. reading carefully) RD did quote verse 18 in his post #14."

You are correct. I apologize for missing that. I was responding to his later comment (#16), where verse 18 was left out. So it was not fair of me to suggest verse 18 was left out for convenience. For that I apologize.

But that does not change the fact that verse 18 is the pivotal verse for Niditch's argument, which Copan either misunderstands or ignores, and which RD was not grasping (simply because he hasn't read Niditch herself, which as I said is no crime).

So despite the fact that RD did not leave out verse 18 for convenience (that was a lazy implication anyway which I never fully intended), the point is, verse 18 according to Niditch's argument indicates that this is not a text about human sacrifice in exchange for victory in battle. That Copan cites Deut 20 as an early text indicates that he has either not read Niditch's argument at any serious length, or he is intentionally obfuscating her argument.

In all fairness, I think it's the former, not the latter, and I never did call him a liar. I raised the question, and whether my clarification impressed you or not (it was not intended to impress), I was making an insider's reference to C.S. Lewis's "lord, liar, or lunatic" argument. Since I never called Copan a liar, I have nothing to apologize for. I raised it as a question for discussion, hence the question mark (?) in the title.

Now, I did call Copan's apologetics deceptive, but they can be deceptive without being intentionally so.

That said, most of the discussion in this thread has ignored my other critique of Copan's strategy. He focuses only on the conquest narratives in Joshua in order to defend his thesis that Yahweh did not order Israelites to kill women and children. But I pointed out that in Numbers 31, the Israelites are explicitly ordered to kill thousands of women and children, and Yahweh orders the same thing in 1 Sam 15. So, Copan's strategy fails, because it omits the evidence that is damning to his thesis. These omissions may be intentional, or perhaps he has never read Numbers 31 or 1 Samuel 15 (among numerous other texts where Yahweh orders child-killing). In either case, his strategy deceives by omission.

Now, as for your charge that I am nitpicking at Copan because I am only focusing on a few small statements in a long essay, I'm afraid that won't stand. It may be that I homed in on a few small instances, but Copan's entire essay is riddled with problems. I just picked two big ones, and pivotal ones. The evidence in Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15, in fact, undermine his entire case in that section. So, the fact that I am picking on only a few small statements is precisely the problem with Copan's essay. They were small statements because giving them more shrift would have exposed the weakness in his argument.

Was the title of my blog post a bit sensationalistic? Perhaps. If I need to apologize for that, then I apologize. Did it constitute an accusation that Copan was a liar? No it did not. I don't deny that I can sometimes behave badly, but in this case I was at most being a bit ornery.

Now, as for Morrison's prediction that my book will not be out soon, and that I am staging a publicity stunt, I am afraid we have yet another failed prediction on our hands. My book will be out in October, and despite Morrison's prediction that Loftus and I are staging a "deconversion" publicity stunt where I announce that I am no longer a Christian (in order, presumably, to sell more books), I am and will remain quite Christian (though not, of course, by Morrison's standards).

I have nothing against those who wish to continue to call Jesus "lord," but as I stated, I believe such language accommodated imperialistic structures the ideology of which the gospel ultimately subverts, so I think that different language to express our relationship to God and God's agent Jesus is necessary as we progress ever closer to the truth of who God is and who we are in God. I am quite aware that to Christians like Morrison, my perspective is appalling, or "evidence" that I am only a pretend Christian. They are entitled to their view of my faith, but I see no need to defend it to them.

I thank Victor for hosting this thread and for the challenge it poses to my strategy and the language I have used to call into question the strategies of certain biblical apologists. It is a healthy exercise. I have benefited from it, and to be honest, I find myself being pulled further and further away from my former penchant for sensationalism. That said, I think it still has a place. I'll just try to be a bit more intentional and careful about it in future. So thank you for the challenge.

All that said, my criticisms of Copan still stand, and I am yet to be persuaded that they are poor or pedantic.

"Loftus can be accused of EXACTLY the same sort of blunders, and many more, and we don't see Thom going on a crusade against the myriad of Loftus' misrepresentations."

Actually, I critique Loftus for his blanket condemnation of Evangelicals. He said they were all idiots, and I called him out on it. If I haven't been on a crusade against other of his errors, it's only because I don't read his blog very often. I've read a few posts, and I've read his book.

But there's another important distinction here, Anonymous. I am a Christian, and so is Copan. Loftus is an atheist, and I am not. Thus, if I'm more critical of biblical apologists than apologists for atheism like Loftus, it's because I follow Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 6, and reserve my judgment for those inside my fold. I am not concerned with any dishonest tactics used by those outside the faith. I have no responsibility to correct them. On the other hand, when those inside the faith use dishonest tactics, I feel a responsibility to speak out about it precisely because I identify with them. And I have tended to make such criticisms jarring so that it is clear to outsiders that I am not treating my tradition's dishonesties with kid gloves.

That explanation may or may not make sense to you, but it is what informs my agenda, like it or not.

One final note. Like another anonymous commenter here, I too have an admiration and respect for Victor and his fair approach and even-handedness. I am a young pup; perhaps by the time my hair is white like his, I'll be as fair as he. I hope so. :)

What I find extremely troubling is that many critics of the bible continue to describe the events reported in the old testament as real "genocides".

In fact, both the conquest of Canaan and the massacre of the amalekites are not true genocides.

In reality, both events never occured:it is a well accepted fact that there was no exodus from Egypt, no Mose, no Joshua, no conquest of Canaan.The israelites actually emerged from the canaanites, that is from the very folks they are accused of having slaughtered !

Although David existed, it is extremely unlikely that the reports of the Bible have any kind of ressamblance with the true historical figure (Finkelstein): they never was a great unified kingdom regrouping Judah and Israel, and the books describing David were written much later, at a time where historical evidences contradicting the theological fiction were no longer available.

By the way, the same can also be said about the conquest of Canaan.

It is therefore extremely misleading to see fellow atheists and sceptics (who should know better) speak of these events as if they really took place in time and history.

Instead of either stating that God (if he existed) would be a moral monster or that the ancient israelites commited atrocities in his name, we should perhaps simply say that the ethic of the jews at this period of history was extremely primitive and this lead them NOT TO COMMIT THEMSELVES ATROCITIES BUT TO IMAGINE ATROCITIES COMMITED BY THEIR ANCESTORS WHICH NEVER HAPPENED !

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.